Pro-Regulations vs Pro-Free Markets Polarization

Folks, if you are interested I added a few words.

http://traveltalesfromindia.blogspot.com/2005/12/what-could-have-been-discussed-over.html

Link added

Thanks Saket.

Abi pointed this good post to me by Gawker.

http://curiousgawker.blogspot.com/2005/12/meaning-of-free-market-economy.html

Comment censored.

Please do not troll – Vulturo

Anti-free market? Gross misrepresentation! Shame! Shame! Liar!

Saket if one is not ‘classical liberal’ (see definition on Wikipedia, a link is available at Indiauncut) which I am most certainly not, does it mean Anti-reform in your dictionary? Or is it a biased moderation?

Eh? What has classic liberal got to do with it?

You really do not understand that?

Duh? I’m confused as hell about it ever since it came up. Therefore, I’m keeping my mouth shut till I am sure what you mean.

This is a very good move on part of Shivam. The blogosphere indeed needed to confront the Libertarians. This should spark a healthy debate on the cartel’s efforts to either gag or condescend to any opinion (consciously or otherwise) other than their own because of their first movers’ advantage on the blogs. First let me clarify that I have no personal grudge against any of the guys I may inadvertently offend. I respect Amit, I think he does a wonderful job in the blogosphere as the benevolent dada (a compliment). Gaurav, I find extremely reasonable, articulate intelligent and extremely well read, Ravikiran is logical to a fault and Naveen Mandava I consider far superior than all of them. Yet, there are some grouses I do have against each of them.

By no comments policy they (Amit and Gaurav) preclude any debate on their own blogs, which are the most popular ones, and deservedly so, in the blogosphere. While their other posts are excellent, they are doing great disservice to the plurality of opinions in the blogosphere. As their posts grow smaller and smaller the reader hardly gets any justification, arguments, or logic (which may very well be correct) behind their pronouncements. So just as they rely on their sole belief in the markets they expect others to follow them blindly.

Besides, while characterizing any dissenting voice as not sound in arguments or pointing to wikipedia posts on logical fallacies, they never look in the mirror at all. Take the example of the self-righteous offense they take when somebody indulges in caricaturing the pro-free-market position. They take offence immediately. Yet the cartel feels no impunity when they indulge in similar behaviour about the Left. Take a look at this post on Kunal’s blog and read the later comments. Members of the cartel had gone to a film appreciation course in MICA Ahmedabad. There the professor teaching the course was a Leftist and the post makes fun of him. The post insinuates how Goebbel-like propagandist the professor is. The post seems fine by itself until you read the comments from students of MICA. The students from MICA defended their professor so vociferously and had such wonderful things to say about him and about the worldview he had introduced to them that I couldn’t believe he was the same individual Kunal spoke such obnoxious things about. Notice the way Gaurav and Kunal react to their comments. It’s appalling to say the least. Just like both of them even I don’t agree with the professor either, but I trust the MICAns views of the professor. They have spent much more time with him, than the cartel members who have caricatured him as Goebbel. Had this been posted on Gaurav’s blog without comments we wouldn’t ever have come to know the dissenting voices at all because of no comments policy. The marketplace of ideas is free and I see no reason why anybody else’s opinions should be derided in such a manner just because they don’t match your own. Look at the way they have caricatured Praful Bidwai and Arundhati Roy and then tell me why the blogosphere should feel for and empathise with the cartel’s self-righteous anger if somebody else caricatures their position?

Now sample this. Amit reacting to a point raised by Mridula:

And what on earth makes you think that people who favour free markets favour “monopolistic competition� (whatever that is), “monopoly and oligopoly�? You’re building a straw man and having a lot of fun pummeling him!

And now check this out where Amit reacts self-righteously to another argument by Shivam Secondly, what flaws in free markets does this incident bring out? On the contrary, it brings out the strength of free markets, that a company like Cobrapost, which would not be allowed to exist in a socialist set-up, can carry out exposes like this. May their tribe increase. May our markets get freer.
When the other person insinuates that you support oligopolies you take offence. Fine. But then you do the same thing by insinuating that anybody arguing for any other view apart from your own has to be a supporter of socialism! Yet, you are the most objective person on earth. When the others do that, they are pummeling a straw man, but when a Libertarian does it he is just being logical.

And how logically sound posts the Libertarians link to? Lets take a few samples. This one (original link missing for mysterious reason so linked as a cached page) was linked from a post on Amit’s blog. It is linked ostensibly as a pot shot at government. The Café Hayek contributor Don Boudreaux says in one of the comments that comparative advantages of the governments are oppression and thievery. Whether that’s true or not is another matter. What is sinister is how the post dismisses the phenomena of global warming. Yes, the environmentalists have cried wolf several times but just because acknowledgement of global warming and the necessary regulation curbs free markets it does not mean that you dismiss what now most scientists agree is a reality. Read a post on Ashutosh’s blog supporting the need for regulation owing to global warming. Ashutosh is one of the most well read people I have ever come across and is a chemistry student and ought to know more than any Libertarian about global warming. And in case you want to know the Libertarian reverence for science and their views on environment read this essay by George Reisman, a famous libertarian thinker. Every straw man logical fallacy you can think of, you will be able to discover in this post. From caricaturing of the environmentalists, to choosing the worst offenders amongst them and then holding forth their views as examples, to using half-truths, it’s all in there. My issue, however, isn’t with the logical fallacies. That is the sole obsession of the Libertarians, who find logical fallacies in everybody else’s arguments but their own. I take a strong issue with the way this man redefines science! The essay reads smoothly till the middle until he chooses to redefine science for us. I am a science student and I have zero tolerance for people who try to poke their fingers into something they don’t understand. Ask any medicine student or a biology student about the use of statistical studies in their discipline and he will tell you the ‘bull’ that this man is talking.

Furthermore, as indicated, in contrast to the procedures of a bull session, reason and actual science establish causes, which, in their nature, are universal. When, for example, genuine causes of death, such as arsenic, strychnine, or bullets, attack vital organs of the human body, death is absolutely certain to result in all but a handful of cases per million. When something is in fact the cause of some effect, it is so in each and every case in which specified conditions prevail, and fails to be so only in cases in which the specified conditions are not present, such as a person’s having built up a tolerance to poison or wearing a bulletproof vest. Such claims as a thousand different things each causing cancer in a handful of cases are proof of nothing but that the actual causes are not yet known — and, beyond that, an indication of the breakdown of the epistemology of contemporary science. (This epistemological breakdown, I might add, radically accelerated starting practically on the very day in the 1960s when the government took over most of the scientific research in the United States and began the large scale financing of statistical studies as a substitute for the discovery of causes)

So now going by his definition of science if you point to the hazards of smoking and its link to lung cancer you are just bull shitting! So let the free market guys continue to rule and the evil government be stopped from regulating the tobacco market. If for supporting their cause we need to redefine science, so be it! As an aside consider today’s New York Times front page story about one of their Libertarian priests from the Cato temple admitting that he took money for writing columns supporting a particular corporation.

I know there are thousand times more such morons amongst the Left who do it the other way round, but aren’t these the same Libertarians who get all puffed up when the Left resorts to such dissembling? Double standards! Nah! Our noble blogosphere Libertarians are above all that. Reisman takes cudgels with the environmentalist for talking about dangers of poisonous substances in parts per million and then arguing for regulation on companies for following these norms, He says that they have no scientific basis for proof. Yet, answer this honestly Libertarians, do you think Reisman would raise this issue when a product like Lysol/Dettol or any other pharma company would be talking about germs in the kitchen sink or bathroom(in parts per million) to scare you into buying their disinfectants/toilet cleaners/ allergy medications? Reisman would never do that because these entities are earning profits! But when environmentalists who are doing this out of their concern not profit, its all-illogical and scare mongering!!! But still the Libertarians would want us to believe they are extremely reasonable and it is always the other side who doesn’t understand what free markets are all about and what rule of law is all about.

Another area where the Libertarians will smirk is falsifiable theories of the Left. Which is fine! Many of the theories of the Left have indeed been falsified. No one doubts that. But we can never really falsify the libertarian theories because free markets have never been implemented completely anywhere in this world or if at all in very small places like Hong Kong and Singapore, whose economies of scale aren’t compatible with other countries. So we do not have a basis for argument at all or so we think! But the libertarian solutions have been falsified too; in Latin America (Argentina) and in Jamaica. But ask a libertarian about this and he will talk about how the government was not democratic enough, how the markets weren’t completely free, the rule of law was not strong enough and how if only their policies were implemented in totality, success was guaranteed. Now compare this to what the Left offers as an excuse for failure of Soviet Union. They will say how Stalin poisoned all their theories because of his ambition, that Soviet Union was never the strict communist regime at all and if only Trotsky had been at the helm of the affairs they could have proven that socialism works. When communists do this, the Libertarians accuse them of shifting the goalposts, talk about how theoretical theories aren’t practically viable etc. But when Libertarians pin the blame on everything else but free markets to explain their own losses, they are actually being extremely logical! Hello! Guys please understand that your theories, however logical and sound they may be can never be implemented in full in a democracy where there will always be a dissenting opinion. So there will never be a Ceteris Paribus (all other things remaining the same) utopia for the free markets to exist. They have to work in an imperfect set of conditions just like the Marxist ideas. And if they fail in those conditions it really may not be their fault but nevertheless we ought to look at alternatives that work reasonably well under imperfect conditions.

When Gurucharan Das in India Unbound talks about how rich getting richer through tax cuts and resulting disparities in income should be tolerated for the greater good, the Libertarians find nothing wrong with that. Yet when 30% of the subsidies meant for poor, as this post by Naveen points out, goes to the rich, the Libertarians will raise a huge hue and cry about wastage of tax payer’s dollars/rupees. Yes, 30% rich do benefit from the subsidies, but at the same time the remaining 70% are reaching the poor. So if I make a statement such as let us ignore the 30% unethical rich beneficiaries of the subsidies and let the rich get richer so long as 70% of the subsidies reach the poor. I am now caricatured as a ‘bleeding heart liberal.’

The problem with all their partisan hackery (yes I am gneralising/caricaturing you guys, so shoot me!) is that they never think critically about their own theories. All their critical thinking is reserved for the Left wing theories. As an example, consider this post that Amit linked to, calling it a ‘marvellous essay’. This ‘marvellous essay’ tells us how incomprehensible chaos resulting from human action but not human design is ultimately beneficial and how markets fit into this category and that human ‘engineering’ (read planning) won’t solve any problems rather would create impediments into free flow of ideas. The author compares the situation of traffic on roads as an example. A person cannot blame anyone in particular for the delay that traffic causes because it is a result of many individuals making similar choices. All very fine till this point. But the author then goes on to say how we should leave the traffic to regulate on its own. Regulating it from outside isn’t the right step as the parameters and variables involved are beyond human comprehension and we would screw it up if we try. The post then tells the readers why Wal-Mart policies ought to be supported. Sounds perfectly logical until you read the criticisms of Wal-Mart, out of which the author only address a single one and on that basis wants us to believe that Wal-Mart is a benevolent market force that should be left alone. When the Left does something similar they are not addressing the ‘tough questions’ and they are shown a wikipedia page about proof by exhaustion, when the Libertarian does it, he is writing an awesome post! Does Amit Varma link to the wikipedia page about Wal-Mart alongside the essay for his readers to think on their own and come to their own conclusions? NO! But if a leftist blogger would have done something similar to promote his views he would be called an incarnation of Goebbel trying to use propaganda to further his viewpoint! And given today’s New York Times story why should I believe that the columnist is not on the payroll of Wal-Mart?

Consider the human engineering/planning vs. letting chaos rule argument: Just because we cannot control something, does it mean that we leave any attempt at streamlining traffic? Why is it wrong to combine both? While respecting unpredictability why not try to foster efficiency through planning wherever possible? Everywhere else the Libertarians would point out about a human being’s ability and Ayn Rand hero like qualities of select human being. But when a person tries to fathom the traffic flows and suggest a solution thinking that he possesses the ability to understand the complex processes involved, he is simply bound to fail! If we do not understand a concept do we simply let it go? Do we say, “you know what its too complex lets just let it follow its own path.� What would have happened if Einstein (who incidentally was a (illogical???) socialist) had not tackled questions of this sort? In every other sphere human arrogance and human knowledge is justified by Libertarians but when it comes to planning anything about markets, the Libertarians are vary of human intervention and planning.

On Pune Mumbai Highway (not the expressway) if there is an accident and traffic from either side is stopped. A perfectly anarchist situation! Honestly guys think how people react. Many of the drivers in a hurry will go out of their lanes they will speed through the right lane and reach to the spot of the accident and wait till the site is cleared and bank on the benevolence of another drivers to let them into the left lane. Now tell me from an economist’s perspective is this an efficient outcome? The delay it causes is far too much. Duh! The Libertarians would say. We are arguing for a rule of law aren’t we! So stop being illogical. Yea, you argue for rule of law, but at the same time argue for less government. So who will enforce the rule of law??? If we had sufficient enough police force wouldn’t it have been able to control and regulate the traffic better? No no no no no, I am missing the point guys. The enforcers would have been corrupt and they would have extracted money from the drivers breaking the rules and filled their pockets. But why not call for more accountability and transparency in the government instead of veering towards free markets? “I just don’t get it. The government is embodiment of pure evil and I should stop being an illogical fool calling for them to sudhrofy� So do we give the job to private players? Yea, why not, their exalted profit motive would ensure that they implement it better than the government? I say let’s do just that! Only minor problem is that an accident of such scale is a relatively rare occurrence. The fines collected may not sustain the salaries of the private enforcers let alone generating a profit. An actual market developing in this sector is mere blind belief. So why not put in place the next best solution, that of the government ensuring means to enforce accountability and transparency? Horrors of horrors! How dare I even utter the word government!!!

The same is the situation with markets developing in health care sector (the case of medicine for AIDS in Africa. One of the bloggers has posed this question in his post on Shivam’s blog to which none of the Libertarians have responded), media and environmental policy. Many of the conservatives (not so distant cousins of the Libertarians) in the country I reside in currently were forced to admit the lack of rapid response to Hurricane Katrina was owing to the conservative insistence on small governments which had led to clipping the wings and making the disaster management department toothless. Now a disaster of such proportions occurs rarely. A market solution to counter this disaster is difficult to emerge if not entirely impossible. So when someone like me urges for case-by-case analysis of where government should and should not interfere, what is wrong? Why should we not qualify our support for free markets by accepting government regulation in certain areas where development of a market is unsustainable and disallowing it in most other sectors. Why should we follow your philosophical antagonism towards governments?

Regarding the argument about stifling of ideas and lack of understanding of causality by the leftists I would say that the Libertarians never acknowledge the contribution of the government at all. When one points out that the Internet was developed by US military, they will talk about how it flourished only in a free market. Yea! But it was developed by a government agency!!! Accidental discoveries will be cheered and celebrated as the invisible hand of market working overtime and chaos ruling over planning. But when NASA and IUCAA and other space programs for which no market can even exist come up with something that has technological applications, do the Libertarians cheer with the same enthusiasm. The IITs and IIMs came from Nehruvian planning mind you. Just because something was developed by an government agency doesn’t make it any better or worse than that of a private one. Take a look at the best news gathering organizations around the world. BBC, Deutsche Presse Agentur, PBS, Xinhua etc. Most of the most respected ones are the public sector ones and not the private sector organizations. Besides, as the fourth pillar of democracy what is wrong with someone seeking taxpayer money in such ventures? Of course Doordarshan and Prasar Bharati are corrupt/inept etc. but is dismantling them the only option? Can’t human creativity come up with creative ways to increase accountability and transparency and help run these organizations professionally? Why does one have to look at solutions only outside the framework of the government and never focus ones creativity inside the box for a change. Why should someone who argues for such measures be dismissed as someone who intends to give more power to bureaucrats and politicians. What is wrong in reforming on both fronts? Reform the government to ensure greater accountability and transparency come up with creative measures to implement checks and balances and improve efficiency. And for those of you, who think this is impossible; think about the Scandinavian welfare states where this has actually been achieved. Libertarians consciously never talk about them and their successes. These states rank the highest in all surveys of Human Development Indices. Higher than their Singapore’s and Hong Kong! Despite their government and part-socialist policies these countries still haven’t lagged behind in any tech revolution. From Nokia to Linux to Ikea to innumerable engineering firms, they excel despite their regulations and taxes. So why not try new ideas and implement some of their accountability and transparency measures in our government? Just because of an ideological antagonism towards government do we neglect these countries’ contributions? Read Naveen Mandava’s column in Economic Times arguing against government spending on education. He gives example of South Korea and Japan to show that results can be achieved with lower education spending. He conveniently avoids telling the readers the 7% spending in Scandinavian countries, which rank the best in education systems around the world. Imagine a similar argument by Leftist if he had argued from welfare statists’ perspective? These guys would have talked about half truths! And do the Libertarians while talking about South Korean and Japanese success ever tell us about the US aid these countries received and that in South Korea there was rampant import substitution for a long time! Why cant you guys think of improving the government efficiency rather than dismantling it altogether? After all BSNL, MTNL have improved drastically after corporatisation, haven’t they? Why not argue for initiatives that link a government health worker’s pay with performance and patient satisfaction, and a teacher’s performance in a public school to performance evaluation forms filled in by the students?

But the funniest posts are the ironical ones. Like Gaurav talking about Hazaron Khwaishein Aisi. The director of that film, Sudhir Mishra is a staunch Leftist. He always laments the fiscal measures adopted by NFDC and the resultant lack of quality cinema. I had a hearty laugh when Amit linked to the New Yorker book review of Expert Political Judgment by Louis Menand. I just kept laughing at the irony of him linking to that review. I couldn’t think of anyone but the chest thumping Libertarians of the blogosphere and the neocons while reading that review. It was a damning indictment of all theory extenders, who are called the hedgehogs who have one large concept and try to apply it to all areas of life. They are contrasted to Foxes who know a lot of theories and are fine with their incompatible goals and choose their loyalties carefully rather than following any ideological doctrine. According to the book the hedgehogs score the lowest when it comes to predicting where the future is going. They score even lower than rats! And in case you are wondering, libertarian pundits were part of the study too. Read that review its brilliant.

Low scorers look like hedgehogs: thinkers who “know one big thing,� aggressively extend the explanatory reach of that one big thing into new domains, display bristly impatience with those who “do not get it,� and express considerable confidence that they are already pretty proficient forecasters, at least in the long term.

My concern is that while extending Hayek’s ideas to different spheres is an intellectual’s delight because every intelligent being is enamoured by a simple idea leading to an extraordinarily elegant solution, it disregards many complexities of specific domains. It may very well be that each person behaves in self-interest alone. But not everyone may be comfortable knowing that they do so. Knowing this may make some disillusioned and lose incentive to do good. More than the actual motivations, a person’s belief (however incorrect) of what motivates him/her is responsible for his/her actions. Social workers are prime examples.

Just like a physicist always looks for universal laws for explanations, Freudians explain everything from psychoanalytic perspectives, communists from a class perspective, a historian always finds a history repeating itself theme everywhere and lately Darwinist have begun extending Darwinism to explain all sorts of things, a market thinker finds his/her salvation from this preoccupation. And all of the above have failed in their predictions about where the world would go. I sincerely hope you don’t. One last problem I have with yielding completely to free markets and limited government ideology is democracy becomes a caricature. What is the use of voting and electing someone if he or she does not have any influence on our lives? It effectively makes me, a citizen, lose control over any changes in my destiny. Free market economics has an amazing ability to cut across any political set up. Be it communist China, Free Market Hong Kong or semi-socialist India free market economics overrides everything else. In fact in a US Congressional hearing on trade policies of China that I had the good fortune of attending, an Harvard economist testified under oath that he believed the assumption that rampant piracy and counterfeit market would collapse because such companies cannot pay taxes thus leading to losses and forcing the communist government to crackdown would never materialise. He said despite conventional economic models predicting the counterfeit market to be a drag, it was actually thrusting the market forward and that no amount of pressure on the Chinese government could stop this because of the higher profit levels involved. Given the stakes each person gets in a free market system, changing of status quo if things start going wrong becomes difficult. While offering innumerable choices within the free market it excludes me many of the fundamental choices in life that the current democratic set up offers. Many of you Libertarians are completely comfortable with that. But not many normal human beings are.

Finally let me first apologise for all the caricaturing and offensive things I said about you. Trust me, I admire you guys. You are all extremely intelligent and talented people and keep up the good work. Just allow comments!!!! Please do not condescend so much to other’s opinions and view posts on Café Hayek critically. Don Boudreaux’s posts on recycling where he conveniently avoids talking about the pollution caused by the materials he doesn’t recycle and his other post recommending an open border policy for the US don’t set the ethical and logical bar too high in case you guys intend to convert any of the bloggers to your side. By linking to such contributors you are exposing yourself to the charge of being arrogant partisans rather than studied logical free market proselytizers. And for God’s sake please understand that we do understand what you guys mean by vouching for markets and not for corporations, we get it when you talk about insistence on rule of laws. Arrey baba the NHBs aren’t that thick skulled as you think. But we are just not willing to agree to the fact that the perfect set of conditions you envisage would ever come to pass in a democratic set up like India’s with majority poor who favour equality over freedom.

And for those of you who have laboured enough to read till this point I would recommend a book by Amy Chua, World Under Fire. This is no left wing propaganda and it was one of the Economist book of the year for 2003. It wonderfully captures the first movers’ advantage and cultural advantages of particular ethnic groups and the worldwide rise in tensions following free market policy implementations. The book does not make an anti globalization/anti-free market argument, rather just points to the problems that it creates. It can help us Indians to avoid those pit falls. For all my rant above I still support implementation of free market policies without clipping the government’s control too much and with additional qualifications in certain markets.

This post is too long and if someone decides to shred it piece by piece I can look like the worst fool in this universe. Yet I take this risk and believe that the thoughts herein are considered holistically rather than piecemeal. I make no pretense at being thoroughly logical though I try to be and I plead guilty to the charge of a large number of assumptions about Libertarian positions, so instead of pointing out my logical fallacies (which I admit regardless) I would appreciate it if henceforth the Libertarians take a long hard look at their own double standards and no comments gag policies.

This-ism discussion-ism is-ism turning-ism out-ism to-ism be-ism interesting-ism

Chetan, that comment of yours is possibly the longest comment in the Indian blogosphere! It is probably longer than any post I have ever written! Kudos! Let me say one thing: arguments apart, I am privileged to have such sane people to argue with, and respect all of them immensely. Amit is a sort of a mentor to me, and that’s by my choice.

Chetan, I suggest covert the comment into a post too.

No Chetan, don’t make it a post! It should remain in blogging history a comment, the largest ever comment!

http://gauravsabnis.blogspot.com/2005/12/hi-chetan.html

My “interim” post.

And Chetan, sorry dude, but no-comments policy stays for Vantage Point. Hope to see you actively participating on the debate-only blog that I’ll mostly start within a month.

Oh one thing I have to respond to, which I didn’t write in the post. You say that we caricature our opponents, and selectively quote only the nonsense they speak, while leaving out the sensible things….i.e by and large we are unfair to our opponents. And yet, if I9or for matter even Amit who wrote a favourable review of it) admire Hazaron Khwaishen Aisi, you find it funny and ironical?

Oops I wasn’t refering to Amit’s or your review of the movie. I was refering to the tangential question you posed Mridula about Yash Chopra movies and Hazaron Khwaishein Aisi on Shivam’s blog.

Assuming that you hate Yashraj movies as much as I do, do you think there should be a role for the government, regulating how many movies they make every year and how many theatres they release them in? After all, you’ll probably agree that the movies are bad, and when people go and watch those movies, it means there aren’t spectators for other better movies, like ‘Hazaron Khwaishen Aisii’.

The irony was that the director of Hazaron Khwaishein Aisi favours regulation and government intervention. I did not even know that both you and Amit had given a good review to the movie. I have met the director and he is as Left of Center as they come. And I think in my excitement I clubbed both ironies as funny, whereas I laughed only at Amit linking to that book review. I guess it was unfair on my part to expect you to know the views of the director.

Chetan,

Finally someone says what I have been thinking ! The pomposity of the cartel and their inability to see beyond their own ideology in situations is laughable, but terribly grating at times. Ravikiran’s blog is good except where he starts talking economics and mixes up libertararian ideas which has resulted in bullshit quite a few times. Arguing with him over comments is useless because he constantly shifts the goal posts with a very holier-than-thou attitude. Yazad is pure bullshit. He sees the power of libertarianism in all good events irrespective of any other factor. Amit has an excellent blog though. Does anyone read Gaurav besides cartel members ?

I respect their opinion not to open comments, it’s a personal preference and its their right. If a blogger wants to concentrate on blogging rather than the large amount of low quality commenting, I’d rather support their not opening comments. Its their pomposity that gets to me.

My favourite blog, Secular Right are a bit pompous too, but what differentiates them is their ability to take to take notice of what the comments are saying and either incorporate them to their argument or add any supporting facts which might have not been noticed by the comment maker. The cartel response in contrast is less said the better. They just shift the goal posts.

Folks, a move was on card since many days but I was not sure when it would happen. As luck would have it, it has happened now. My blog is now hosted at

http://www.gonomad.com/traveltalesfromindia/

Such a timing. I apologise to whoever is looking for and not finding me at my blogger address.

Here is my response to Chetan. I am speaking for myself and not the Cartel as a whole.

1. Logical Fallacies
If someone makes logical fallacies during debates, we call them. If we make them, we have no problems in their being called. But reacting to our pointing out of logical fallacies by just ridiculing us, is itself another logical fallacy. I notice that though Chetan has pointed out fallacies galore in posts we may have linked to, he still hasn’t pointed out fallacies in stuff we ourselves have written.

2. Fallacies by Libertarians other than us
Chetan has pointed out fallacies by many other libertarians and asked us why we do not point those out. Dude, what business are we in? We are not logic vigilantes. We don’t wear capes and prowl the streets at night preventing logical fallacies. If someone makes a logical fallacy while arguing with us, we’ll point it out. If we make one, we’ll accept responsibility for it. But if some other libertarians are making logial fallacies, why should we go about correcting them? It’s the job of opponents of libertarianism.

3. No critical thinking about our own theories
Again, not true. Within the cartel, there are folks who adhere to different philosophies. Yazad and Chandru are anar-cap-lib, while most of the others are minarchists. Just a few days back I wrote a post about this. A few months back, I also wrote a post about a dilemma I faced because of the Imrana issue, something that Shanti linked to last week.

4. Anger at caricaturing the cartel
Chetan kept repeating this point again and again. Which Cartelian, at what point, reacted with anger at the Cartel being caricatured? Go ahead and caricature us. If caricatures are backed by solid critiques, like for Bidway and A-Roy, those caricatures hold substance and endure. If not, they wither away.

5. Libertarian policies can never be “fully’ implemented
Even if we grant this point for the sake of the argument, look at the points we make. Are we calling for an overthrow of the government? HArdly. In every field, we ask for a freer society and a freer economy. The free-est society is obviously our ideal, but we don’t go about pushing that exact ideal down people’s throat, do we? But if that ideal is attacked, we will obviously defend it.

6. Why not take a more centrist position?
Because my friend, we don’t swing that way. Asking for accountability from the government is fine. I am never going to oppose that. I am just saying it is futile.

7. Sudhir Mishra
Dude, I know he’s a leftist. Everyone knows he’s a leftist. His interviews clearly indicate that. Which is what makes HKA an even better movie in my eyes that if it had been made by a non-leftist. And in our admiration of HKA lies our vindication.

These are responses to all the points you have made about me, or the cartel.

Rest of the comment is by and large a collection of your beliefs about politics and economics, which you are entitled to. I don’t agree with most of the points you make though.

Btw, the title of this Desipundit post is misleading. The argument is not free markets versus regulation. It is regualted free markets versus unregulated free markets.

I just noticed this in XxX’s comment:

Yazad is pure bullshit.

What heady praise! I’m touched as I haven’t been the recepient of invective for quite some time now. Thank you XxX! (I hope I’ve got the spelling and capitalisation of your pseudonym right)

The next sentence needs some backing.

He sees the power of libertarianism in all good events irrespective of any other factor.

I don’t remember making any such generalisation. And unfortunately, however much I’d like it to be true it isn’t. Communism killed more than 100 million people in the last century, but it did have some good features (advocacy of atheism for one). Arundhati Roy talks nonsense most of the time, but I agree with her stand on Narmada (for different reasons).

Actually Shivam, the debate really is “who should regulate free markets” — the government? or the market itself? or some other third party?

Incidentally, what was the point about Sudhir Mishra? I myself in the past have confessed to liking Kaifi Azmi, even though he was an out and out communist. I like Gulzar’s poetry and I like even his movies which have a streak of leftism in them. In fact, I openly admire many leftist novels such as Maxim Gorky’s “Mother”. One of my favourite writers is Eric Blair, whom you probably know by some other name. He was a moderate lefty. I am also a fan of Bernard Shaw, an avowed socialist. That doesn’t mean that I agree with their policy prescriptions. But I don’t go prejudging literary works by the political affiliations of their authors. I would have thought that it was an admirable trait. Why is it “ironical”?

1. Logical fallacies
The posts that you guys link to support your positions and you use them to bolster your viewpoints. So linking to logically fallacious posts is not exemplary behaviour and I was pointing that out. I see it as propaganda not presenting the other side even when it has substance. Since your faith in free markets is just faith, hardly is there any space for logical fallacies. How can anyone argue against you guys when you talk about hypothetical situations such as, “it is not hard to envisage an enterprising entrepreneur catering to that segment etc.� And when we point to examples where these markets haven’t developed and therefore resulting losses to consumer interests, you accuse us of being logically fallacious and we will be pointed to some wikipedia post like A does not follow from B and that crap. My issue was never with your logical fallacies at all. Even in my comment I had said that it is the sole obsession of you guys. My concern was that instead of addressing legitimate concerns in any substantative manner you simply stick to your ideological positions without ever engaging in conversation and raise the specter of logical fallacies to browbeat others into submission. Take the Tilling Fields discussion on Indianeconomy. Amit Kulkarni merely requested Amit Varma to go through the links and address the criticisms of Wal-Mart therein. But no, even the thought of reading anything dissenting is a turn off. Amit never responded to the points raised in those articles instead responded with:

Now, on Wal-Mart, you say they “kill the competition.� Now, how do they do this? Do they use hitmen? Trained criminal gangs who bomb competitor’s warehouses? Or do they just deliver a better service to the customer at a better price. And you’re complaining about that?

Oh my God! Have you guys ever heard of something called phrases,idioms etc. in English language? And if you are proud about such level of discourse and erudition amongst you guys. Best of Luck! In that case expending my energies in this discussion is futile. Read this comment by one of your fellow Libertarians, after doing that, read the comment he as responding to and my response. I have faith in the readers here who will know whom to empathise with. My point was logical fallacies are not more important than the ends. And I am not saying this only about you guys. There are many more morons like this from the left. But for every such person there is a sane intelligent guy who seeks earnest discussion. By shifting the discussion into a theoretical realm you guys are dismissive about what happens in real life situations.

2. Fallacies by Libertarians other than us
I was merely doing my job as an ‘opponent’ of Libertarianism by pointing out the fallacies of Reisman.That part about you guys not looking for fallacies in Libertarian positions, was in the context of Cafe Hayek contributor Don Bourdeaux whose posts you link to. And this again leads into your next point about critical thinking regarding your own positions.

3. No critical thinking about our own theories
If you think that you do critically think about your positions, then I have no issue. I have linked to the ‘marvellous essay’ and pointed out how critical thinking might have benefitted Amit’s readers.

4. Anger at caricaturing the cartel
In my comment I had cited the specific example of Amit Varma taking offense.

And what on earth makes you think that people who favour free markets favour “monopolistic competition� (whatever that is), “monopoly and oligopoly�? You’re building a straw man and having a lot of fun pummeling him!

If you think this wasn’t an angry tone and it very well might not be, I retract my accusation. Let the readers decide on their own. For more such examples go to Indianeconomy.org. Read the comments section there for more examples of this anger at being caricatured. I am sorry that some readers read my comment as an accusation towards you or Amit or Ravikiran in particular. It wasn’t meant to be that way. You and Ravikiran may not be party to this. But my grouse was against this entire dadagiri (pardon my generalisation) of Libertarians who do things with impunity themselves but condescend when others do the same.

5. Libertarian policies can never be “fully’ implemented
“Are we calling for an overthrow of the government? HArdly.� Again, my comment was not directed at you, Ravikiran or Kunal or Amit in particular. It was about the behaviour of blogosphere Libertarians in general. There are many out there in the blogosphere who having been influenced by your ideas or were already Libertarians and they do not just condescend but outrightly insult anyone that doesn’t share their antipathy towards governments. About defending your ideals I have no issues. You should defend them. My problem is you defend the ideals while the other person is merely talking about ground realities and has no issues with your ideals.

6. Why not take a more centrist position?
You are right about that. I think I may have insinuated this as a more pursuasive argument on my side than anything to do with you. I stand corrected. In fact it’s good that you do not take those positions. Let’s leave it to the centrists to do that. Only those with convictions will be able to defend their views. And unless you are convinced about centrist positions I don’t expect you to veer in that direction simply beause it is easier for everyone to agree.

7. Sudhir Mishra
Vindication? Appreciating a film has nothing to do with respecting ideological viewpoints.This entire discussion in centered about policy/economic debates. Otherwise tho koi problem hi nahi tha na! Almost everyone here will agree with me that we think you guys are brilliant. I for one am enamoured by how well read you guys are. My point is even though we disagree with your ideological views we respect them and try our best to understand them further. Any guy who does not agree with you but yet takes the time to read what you write and also takes the time to react with some substance, does it because he thinks he is missing out on something that you guys know and which he hasn’t figured out. But when he probes with some skepticism, he is stonewalled with links to logical fallacies. And please understand this. I haven’t done this out of spite or something. I have no personal axe to grind with any one of you here. In fact, I wrote this because I really admire you guys and would love to see you interacting with others having dissenting ideological opinions respectfully. That is all I seek.

And finally I am glad that you said that you don’t agree with my viewpoints. That is how it should be. Every discussion doesn’t have to end with one side conceding defeat. The more passionate the discussion the more creative the arguments. But a condescending discussion is a recipe for zero arguments and therefore zero solutions.

Ravikiran:

I think this Sudhir Mishra thing has gone too far now. I am happy that you guys like him. Really happy and I mean it. And couldn’t agree more about Shaw. May I say Ayn Rand is one of my favourites. Having said that, I found it ironical that Gaurav should cite MIshra in his arguments against regulation. If you do not find it ironical. Fine. Forget it. Probably it is just me. It was not my intention to suggest that it is not an admirable thing that you like art irrespective of viewpoints. If it came across as that, I am sorry.

Also, Chetan, about Comment #28, I must point out that you made your point that you were using “kill the competition” as a metaphor, but you haven’t answered the core issue of Walmart. Do you think that they offer lower prices to their poor customers or not?

Ravikiran:

It wasn’t me but Amit Kulkarni who was using that as a metaphor.(and thanks for correcting me. phrase/idoims! What was I thinking. I should have provided the link. I was not a party to that debate at all. So the question of my answering anything doesn’t arise. My views on Wal-Mart may be much different than Amit’s. I have cited that as an example of how a person who seeks honest discussion is thwarted by such an attitude and because I wanted to pass a judgment on Libertarian views on Wal-Mart.

Ah now this is called debate as it is going between Chetan and Guarav, though I will enjoy it more if Gaurav used ‘dude’ less. Doesn’t add a single thing to the argument and sounds a tad arrogent.

And Gaurav you said:

“I am speaking for myself and not the Cartel as a whole.”

So is the variuos ‘we’ you used in your post are to be read as ‘I’?

LOL! That last sentence should have read:-

I have cited that as an example of how a person who seeks honest discussion is thwarted by such an attitude and not because I wanted to pass a judgment on Libertarian views on Wal-Mart.

What is it called? Would Freudian slip of tongue be appropriate classification? And the Amit in the line “My views on Wal-Mart may be much different than Amit’s.” refers to Amit Kulkarni as well as Amit Varma both.

Mridula, I take it that he used the “we” to include me, because I agree with him. I hope that satisfies your grammatical nitpicking.

Chetan, in that case what were you trying to say? The point was a substantive one – we libertarians believe that as long as Walmart does not use physical force or intimidation, “killing the competition” by selling at lower prices or by giving better service is okay. You might disagree, but why did you make it sound like it was a simple case of not understanding metaphorical language?

Chetan

This is in very brief response to your original comment. Firstly, fine effort, I’d never be able to write a 4,800-word post, leave alone a comment.

One of your major gripes is my not having comments enabled on my blog. Well, my posts on economics etc are the ones which seem to be the ones you, Mridula and Shivam most disagree with, and I cross-post all India-related ones to The Indian Economy Blog, where comments are open. But they will remain closed on India Uncut. Why so? Well, my reasons are stated here, so rather than repeat myself, I request you read that.

Also, you say we “gag” opinion and do “great disservice to the plurality of opinions in the blogosphere.” How do we do this? To quote some questions put forward by Arun Simha:

1. Is the cartel running a regulated blogosphere that prevents leftists from creating their own blogs or group blogs?
2. Are jackbooted, leather jacketed staats polizei forcing people to read those blogs?
3. Does Amit Varma have no right to restrict comments in the blog and prefer emails to cut down on the comment-abuse?

My blog is my space, and just as you would not want strangers popping into your house in the interest of “plurality”, I prefer to keep comments at bay. Those who do not like this can ignore my blog and go elsewhere. (And I’m amazed at how so many people who purport to dislike my blog read it regularly. Why?) And those who wish to argue with my free-market views can do so on the Indian Economy Blog, as indeed so many people do.

As for most of your other charges, I think Gaurav and Ravikiran have answered them well enough, Gaurav here, and Ravi here, here and here. I agree with most of what they say, so it’s pointless to repeat it here.

I haven’t responded to your comment earlier because I’ve been incredibly busy (statement of fact, not meant to be condescending!), which is also a good reason to avoid comments. I have only so many free hours in a day, and I prefer to spend as much of it blogging as I can. If I’m blogging badly, my readers will go elsewhere. No one is forced to read India Uncut.

Thanks for the courtesy of letting me know about the comment by email. Please feel free to email me anytime you want, and to comment on The Indian Economy Blog.

Ravikiran:

It was not my intention to make it look like it was a simple case of not understanding metaphorical language. I think both are having with serious problems with semiotics here. You are reading the meaning of what I am trying to convey differently than what I had intended it to mean. So even though I personally disapprove of highlighting I will do it this once so that there is no further misunderstanding.

Amit Kulkarni merely requested Amit Varma to go through the links and address the criticisms of Wal-Mart therein. But no, even the thought of reading anything dissenting is a turn off. Amit never responded to the points raised in those articles instead responded with: (followed by that much maligned metaphor)

This was the main gripe and not misrepresentation of metaphors. That was to illustrate how trivial the response was to the questions that were raised. I was refering to the fact that instead of going through the articles linked there and giving a subtantative response to the criticisms raised therein Amit made some sarcastic remarks and switched to ideology.

If it is your contention that come what may you will only look at issues from this broad ideological framework without ever understanding any nuances, and addressing specific economic concerns, I can’t argue with that except saying that its unfortunate and stifles discussion.

I would urge you to read those links. There are several questions from an economic perspective there. Another thing is the Cafe Hayek link that Amit links to at the end of his comment. I seriously consider you guys think critically about Cafe Hayek posts. In almost all their posts on Wal-Mart they address only the leftist positions, completely neglecting to address all other criticisms. I don’t know whether you know this but many conservatives too have a problem and not with those stupid bleeding heart wage kind of arguments that Cafe Hayek takes relish is arguing against and in the process thinking that it appears so smart. Seriously guys grow up! I read those Cafe Hayek posts and simply rolled my eyes. Wages aren’t the only issue with Wal-Mart. Please read. You may dismiss it as bullshit but pray tell us why those criticism are such a load of bull. Us minions of the blogosphere would be eternally thankful to you if you could do that. We would not mind working alongside you in explaining others why Wal-Mart should be allowed in India.

Given this, wouldn’t you think it would have helped if Amit Varma had read those links and given a response from the Indian Libertarian perspective. Perhaps the commenters wouldn’t have agreed but they would have learnt something they didn’t know or didn’t see because of their biases or biases of the articles they had read.

Mridula dudette

The “We” came because of my….our…belonging to a Royal Family.

Seriously…..I wrote the post first and then added the disclaimer. Forgot to make the necessary pronoun alterations.

In comment 26 Yazad said:

“Actually Shivam, the debate really is “who should regulate free marketsâ€? — the government? or the market itself? or some other third party?”

Yazad, firstly the debate is whether or not regulation is needed. Self-regulation means no regulation. Libertarians say consumers are the regulation, but it is often not borne out in practise.

Ravi and Gaurav: no amount of sarcasm and resorting to semantics and nullify the large amount of evidence that individual libertarian bloggers often use “we” to signify the cartel. It is not a multiple personality complex. It is, well, a cartel with every member as spokesperson.

Amit:

Thanks for responding. I would have aprreciated it if you had kept those three questions out. Had you done that, I would have thanked you profusely. But now I think probably all this was a wasted effort on my part and I think maybe I am not good at getting my ideas across.

This is my final response. By quoting those three questions you have sapped any and every incentive to have any further discussion on this topic. My sense of futility is overwhelming.

The three questions being asked are the exact typical behaviour I have been pointing out throughout this discussion. Why does everything have to be so black and white? If you are not for free markets then you are for corrupt governments etc. When I raise a point about diversity of opinion why do you feel the need to quote questions like whether there are regulations in the blogosphere and whether police are forcing people to read blogs? and whether it is against your rights? My God Rights??? I am no lawyer, and that was just a humble comment! Do you think I am a fool not to understand such simple things? How would you feel if in one of your post you raise a point arguing for more open government and I retort by asking you whether India is a police state and whether there is a policeman posted in your bedroom. Please show a modicum of respect towards my intelligence. If you really valued the civility of this discussion, trivialising it thus should have been the last thing on your mind.

The gagging theme was not restricted only to your comment policies. They were a definitely a part of it and I will come to that later. It was directly linked to the condescending attitude that Libertarians have developed (and this again is a particular feature of Indian blogosphere libertarians.) I have many libertarian friends here so does Dilip D’souza and their responses to debate are nowhere close to the way you guys behave. By stonewalling any arguments with calling the opponent illogical or bleeding heart or any other derogatory name, you (not you in particular) have reduced any incentive to differ without keeping ones dignity intact. Given your enormous clout (which I have no qualms about! I am just stating a matter of fact) in the blogosphere most bloggers follow your(Amit, Gaurav, Indian Economy Ravikiran Yazad etc. etc.) blogs. In such a situation by being so condescending towards dissent, an (unintended) outcome is that incentive to differ is lost. Whether anyone can post anything in the blogosphere was not the question at all. Anybody who has been for a small time in the blogosphere knows how difficult it is to keep track of blog postings. It’s easier to follow the popular ones. The blogs that are frequented the most are yours. Plus popularity of blogs works on links and you (libertarians) link to blogs with similar opinion thus bringing them up in the hierarchical ladder. And I am stating this as a fact so please don’t get back to me with questions such as do I want to regulate blogs and stuff. Under the circumstances its only your opinion that skims/floats over.

About the part of how no comment policies are detrimental to flourishing opinion in the blogosphere I have given enough examples citing Kunal’s blog and your own links whose content goes uncontested and given their ideological leanings according to me is a propagandish arrangement and therefore in my view not so desirable a situation.

Those who do not like this can ignore my blog and go elsewhere. (And I’m amazed at how so many people who purport to dislike my blog read it regularly. Why?)

No one is forced to read India Uncut.

I think you have taken this personally. I for one am a big fan of your blog and it is because I love it so much that I invested that much time to make some constructive criticisms. I did this not because I didn’t like your blog but rather because I liked it so much that I thought it would be benefitted by some suggestions. I thought given the free marketers that you are you would like customer feedback and would appreciate if the efficiency of the marketplace itself improves. But your response is like the Maharashtrian businessman in Gaurav Shahane’s post that you once linked to. “Those who do not like this can ignore my blog and go elsewhere.” Frankly, you were the last person I expected such a behaviour from.

I understand your constraints regarding allowing of comments and can see your difficulty and management/logistical issues. But can’t the marketplace come up with a creative alternative to bypass these? After all the blog market is still nascent and there can be a lot of creative ideas to make it better. I for one thought of one suggestion. Why don’t you link to an internet forum after each post? There people will have to register one time and that would keep out nasty guys who are there for fun. You do not have to monitor for trolls etc. and further you can state explicitly that you would only respond at your own free will that too if only you feel the need to. Those readers who agree will go there and discuss regardless of your conditions. This will work especially in case your case as you do not need to respond at all since most of the posts are not 2000 word arguments but media/blog articles. Here you waste no time as all you have to do it add a link to your post thats all. No monitoring etc. is necessary. So readers can slug it out and shred the arguments of the linked post and share diverse views and critically think about the posts you link to. Besides, I do not argue in favour of comments just because others can point out flaws. But because there can be such a wonderful array of intellectual gems in some of the comments that many a times the post/link itself is overshadowed. I am reader/consumer I did not want to lose out on this and therefore thought you should look into comments. I really didn’t know you would take all this so personally. Take the Indianeconomy blog as an example, don’t you think it benefits the readers to have comments? I for one love that blog and the discussions there. And given that India Uncut readers are mostly well-read intellectuals there is a case to be made for readers missing out on others intelligent thoughts. This is what I mean by discussion getting gagged. Given that the tracking of posts is such a difficult thing to do why not think of a more efficient outcome to address this need of the market(and going by the response this comment has received many have felt this need.) If indeed you have such faith in markets I suggest as a well-wisher, capitalise on this need!

And Gaurav has decided to put up regular postings of good responses he gets through email. So I think my comment/criticism did bring about some change. But as a free marketer instead of appreciating this, all you did was talk about rights and police and regulation which serves no purpose and adds no value to the discussion at all. That is why I said at the end of it all I am disappointed.

Correction: Instead of Gaurav Shahane the name of the person who wrote the article on Marathi attitude was Girish Shahane.

Chetan

If I didn’t respect your comment, I wouldn’t have replied. And wouldn’t be replying now. And I can’t see why those three questions should be any more offensive to you than allegations of gagging and terms like “dadagiri” that you’ve used for me. If I haven’t taken offence to those, you shoulnd’t take offence to these.

As for feedback, I get plenty of it from readers who write to me, and I give it a lot of importance. That doesn’t mean I have to accept all of it.

And Chetan, as far as your internet forum idea is concerned, nice, but all my posts on Indian economics are already open for comments on The Indian Economy Blog! In addition to that, if you want to set up a forum where trolls are kept out and my time isn’t needed to moderate, as you suggest, rocking, let’s talk about it. You know my email id.

As far as logical fallacies are concerned, I’m going to point them out when I come across them. If I call something a non sequitur and you show me how you reach point B from point A, that’s the best way to prove me wrong. But to refuse to engage me on the grounds that you don’t like these entirely valid terms reflects something about you, not me. If I invoke a fallacy you haven’t committed, that gives you an opening to show the weakness in my argument. So go for it!

(As for Cafe Hayek, I think it is a remarkable blog, so let’s agree to disagree there.)

It is the height of naivete to believe that any one model can be a solution to the real complexity that is the Indian economy. That is the reason for my humor post on it since I have seen the other side too in this country and it is not all too rosy.

Chetan,
You said – “My sense of futility is overwhelming.”
That’s the only reason I’m writing this.

I’m glad you had both time & inclination to take on the cartel. imo, the cartelians have neither.

They have clearly stated their lack of time (I’m so busy…Got to rush,…) & lack of inclination ( I don’t like debates…I’m not a good speaker…I won’t enable comments…) to engage the other.

Now, nobody’s obliged to engage the other.

The cartel emerged at a time when the blogosphere was filled with what I will call “nonsense blogs”, when the “#1 Indian Blogger” was a self-centered Kiruba who told us about his life in Chennai & children & rowing boats & running marathons & so on. That was all fine, but there was no substance in them, nothing to take home. Unless you were Kiruba’s in-laws, there was no incentive to reading his blog. Thankfully, Amit & Gaurav garnered attention & today I can actualy take something home & mull at leisure. That is a huge plus.

By filling the void, the cartel has gained, nay, EARNED, a rightful marketshare, and more importantly, a mindshare. You would be surprised, but the average NRI knows the cartel members by name, their relations, fiascos, hundred other oddities. This isn’t because NRIs don’t “have a life”, so to speak. But because the system here enables a relatively stress-free life, unlike back home where every day is a chore bordering on ordeal. This stress-free aspect leads to a large block of free space, & I’d rather that free space be filled with some useful thoughts on the state of Indian economy than whether Kiruba drank rasam or sambar on the weekend.

Thanks to the cartel, I’ve engaged in useful debates over the phone & online with people. These debates have shaped my thinking & over time I’ve gotten a better handle on who I am. I tend to ramble & post provocatively simply to force an engagement, but over time I have realized that it is futile. The cartel has no obligation to engage the other. They have become a tiny version of New York Times…you can’t expect the Times to print every ‘Letters to the Editor’ & respond to it, & hence the cartelian stonewall.

I do urge you not to let this stonewalling “get to you”, as the cartel-wannabe Nilu frequently opines. In my own professional life here in the US, I have seen maybe a 1000 instances where the cartel’s assumptions would be laughed at. For all its freemarket pretensions, the US is such a bloody communist state, especially when you get down to actually dealing with teamsters & doctors & cabbies & their umpteen unions…the image an outsider has of the US as a patron saint of liberty & freemarket is such a horrible sham, yet, as an insider, I can only applaud the invisible hand of the market that enables this level of deceit.

So let the cartelians cherish their libertarian leanings. I remember in my childhood I thought I was very good at math. I was extremely good at doing numeric manipulations using various ‘tricks’ outlined in Vedic Mathematics & such shit. Ofcourse, once I started Uni, I realised I was good not at math but arithmetic. That distinction between arithmetic & math was so fundamental, yet even today I find reasonable educated people on both sides of the Atlantic telling me “You Indians are good at math” when they infact mean arithmetic.

Similarly, I look forward to the day when the cartel, which is currently extremely good at ‘arithmetic’ ie. first-level economics with libertarian leanings & a penchant for logical correctness oblivious to real-life implications, gets past that stage & takes a stab at ‘math’ ie. how eco is actually practised by people in the real world who profess to be freetraders & libertarians to the world but practise something else altogether.

So Chetan, Please Do write often, I trememdously enjoy your prose.
Thanks
kytb

Amit:

I am sorry. I got a bit carried away and was unfair there. I guess the two days of defending myself took their toll finally. I hope you understand.

However, let me clarify something so that there is no acrimony. I used the word ‘gag’just once in my comment. That too I refered the no comment policy as gag and did not accuse you personally of gagging. There is a huge difference there.

Another thing I realised just now is why you might have taken this a little personally. It just struck me now after reading your comment. I called you “dada (as a compliment).” After you pointed it out, I understood how that word can be interpreted. In Marathi dada stands for elder brother and in Bengali (my current room mate it Bengali) too it has positive connoations. I meant it in that benevolent sense. In my zeal to type that comment I forgot that it has negative implication in Hindi. I didn’t mean it that way. Sincerely I did not. I once again reiterate I really respect you a lot and love your blog. So it wont ever occur to me to call you a dada in that sense. I used the word dadagiri as a tongue in cheek remark about overall behaviour of the Libertarians and I even asked for an apology for generalising then and there, it wasn’t directed at anyone in particular.

I hope this settles your concerns and there is no bitterness left. If you have any other concerns. I would be happy to address them. I hope this discussion ends amicably. Thanks.

Ravikiran I care very little about your opinions ad that happened after I discovered this:

http://www.ravikiran.com/2004/04/22/attention-north-indians/

Gaurav in a comment like the one you made in response to me, ‘dudette’ adds a lot

Chetan, my only point was that you didn’t point out these things at first go. The space that you’ve used up in pointing to who all like or hate Wal-mart could have been used up in actually summarising the criticisms of Wal-mart, and how it translates to criticisms of libertarian ideas. I am not interested in individual misdeeds of individuals or corporations. I am interested only to the extent that they have policy implications, preferably in an Indian context.

Shivam, so what? We Cartelians are personal friends, have similar views and know each others’ minds. We have never hidden this fact. I have a fairly good idea of what Gaurav or Yazad or Amit will think on an issue. So naturally, sometimes I might use “we” to express our opinions, and sometimes I might be mistaken. Sometimes it is the other way round.

It is not like someone decides on our behalf what we should think. We do not have similar views because we are in the Cartel. We are in the Cartel because we have similar views.

Mridula, if it makes any difference to you, it was a joke. I’ve made jokes about a lot of ethnicities on my blog. But it was nice debating with you though.

Chetan, thanks for that, there’s absolutely no acrimony as far as I am concerned. Yes, things like “dada” can get confusing, and I’m glad you clarified that and am touched by the sentiment. Ditto the “dadagiri” thing: had we been sitting opposite each other, I would surely have understood it was tongue-in-cheek, but in cold print misunderstandings can occur. Maybe it’s my fault as much as yours. We can say things with a twinkle in our eye, but on a coputer screen that twinkle is lost.

I look forward to many more conversations with you.

Mridula, that post by Ravikiran was a joke! And “dudette” is a compliment: I have come across so many girls who complain that Gaurav never calls them “Dudette.” I tell you!

Amit, I took Gaurav’s ‘dudette’ quite in stride. I thought my smiling face would indicate it

Now you tell me it is a complement, so I will agree to it.

Ravikiran, the problem is I have no way of knowing it is some insider’s joke on a public blog.

In this post of your’s

http://www.ravikiran.com/2005/07/25/we-are-condescending/

You give a link, so I can understand you are responding to someone and not making a blanket statement. But that North Indian stuff is appalling in its current form.

Edit it, make it easier to understand that it joke. Till then, I find it in very poor taste.

Mridula, it was not a “private joke” in the sense that it was directed at someone specific. It was a whimsical observation on something I noticed when I was in Lucknow. So there is nothing I can do to make it less appalling to you. Sorry my taste does not match yours. It was nice debating you.

And Lucknow is equated with entire ‘North India?’ Your sense of geography is wonderful.

Kya yaar tu bhi:

You have always intrigued me. I like the perspectives you present in your comments on indianeconomy.org. Also, reading your name itself puts one at ease before reading your comment. The informality in it smoothens any combativeness in your comment itself. Why are you always in the shadows? Do you blog? I would really love you to read your stuff.

That was a nice history you provided. I wasn’t aware of all that. I couldn’t stop laughing at the jokes you cracked at the expense of Kiruba. (whether Kiruba drank rassam or sambar on weekends. LOL!)I agree with you about the cartel earning their rightful marketshare. They certainly are good at what they do. Thanks for those encouraging words.

Umm.. Mridula, you’ve run out of things to disagree with me about?

No Ravikiran, I stand by original position that I care very little ….

And this time even if Amit says that post is a joke I am not going to believe him.

Chetan,
Will email you shortly.

I don’t blog…don’t have that much interesting
stuff happening everyday. If I start blogging, it will be like Kiruba’s blog sans children, as I don’t have any. Atleast he can proudly say, look at my daughter holding the Brinjal or Drumstick or LadysFinger as the case may be. If I start blogging, I will have to hold that Brinjal myself…

I admire the cartel’s wisdom, but I do think it is quite abstract, if you will.

Its like NRI kids. They are born here in the USA, live all their lives here, speak with a completely American accent, yet take some short vacation to India & sign up for some Bharatnatyam & Yoga Classes & wear an occasional kurta on Diwali & suddenly they want us to acknowledge their “Indian identity”! I was at a recent Diwali gathering & an 18 year old walks up to me & declares her Indian-ness & her admiration of all things Indian including spicy food, roti, Shah Rukh Khan, Bollywood music….I interrupted her quite rudely and said – ‘Lady, no matter how hard you try, you will NEVER be Indian. You will never understand what it means to be from India.’

Her mom, who is a good friend of mine, later on told me to indulge her daughter’s “passing fad of Indian-ness”! Her mom, who, like myself, is from a tiny village in India, completely agrees with me that the girl can never be Indian no matter how hard she tries. Unless you grow up in India & go to school with Indian kids & share their joys & sorrows & watch a corpse on a bier and pull water out of an artisan well, and occasionally go without electricity & study under keroene lamp & pluck a mango from an orchard and ….gosh so many many memories are pouring in! Without any of that, how can you just waltz in & declare yourself Indian ?

Similarly, what ‘right’ does an Amit Varma or a Ravikiran have to talk about Walmart simply by doing some reading on wikipedia & CafeHayek or whatever website ? At best they can argue in the abstract. I have lived here in the US for umpteen years, easily spent over a $100,000 in over 100 Walmarts across 30 states, know enough about the store to walk in blindfolded & find a gallon milk in the dairy section, and I am still not sure if Walmart is good or evil! I have seen strikes outside Walmart, complete devastation of small shops in rural towns as Walmart comes marching in, the enormous increase in traffic along narrow arteries simply unequipped to deal with that number of shoppers, municipalities looking on helplessly as they see the entire town culture change from an idylic retirement paradise to a shopper’s haven, property prices plummet due to excess traffic & noise, the giant Walmart trucks showing up every 4 hours all day & all night, it is simply awe-inspiring, astounding & jawdropping…one doesn’t know whether to go down on all fours & prostrate before Sam Walton, or shake your head vigorously for the complete mess that having a Walmart in your community ensures.
Where I currently live, a small rural town of 20,000 people cutoff from the nearby cities, with a tiny hospital meant to handle a small caseload, the arrival of Walmart has completely swamped the hospital. Walmart employs over a 100 checkout clerks at the cash register & storeboys & stocking room employees, all at $8 to $10 an hour…none of them have health insurance & everybody now shows up at this hospital. The constant hum of Walmart trucks on the single freeway into town, the shoppers from other villages who previously were shopping in their own community in farmers markets now arrive in their 4 by 4s, mobile housing for the employees, whole community has changed…this is the true price of a DVD player, not the $29 I pay at the checkout counter.

A little experience can change, even radically polarize, your opinions about consumerism. But no amount of reading online literature can convince you of the true magnitude of the issue.

If the cartel were based in the hinterland instead of in Mumbai, you would hear very different rhetoric instead of the Ayn Rand worship….Here in the US, even schoolkids scoff at Rand..to think that these morons interpret Galt as some legend…Jesus!

But, timepass ke liye sab chalta hai. So, long live the cartel!

kytb

Yazad, Ravikiran

To address the criticism of you people about Communism, it does not really matter what badge you wear if you are hellbent on killing people either by waging wars or conducting mass genocide, for the sole profit of a few people. In recent memory of last 100-200 years, you could be a ‘Communist’ or ‘Fascist’ or ‘Khmer Rouge’ or ‘Imperial’ or ‘democratic’ or ’socialist’. If you can get away with it, you do it. Just because you can. You coincidentially align with the people in power. You change your stripes when necessary. To justify to your unconscious hidden self, and to the public, you lie. It has been clinically proven, if you tell lies consistently, a point comes when you believe your own lies, and it becomes the truth.

It is just pure coincidence that the Communist Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist Khmer Rouge, Fascist Germany, Imperial Japan, etc… killed 100 million. It could very well have been that if Communism had triumped, all that is ‘democratic’ would be villified. To the victor go the spoils of rewriting history. After having seen recently on how history is being rewritten, I would take the past with a barrel full of salt. As it is, ‘democracy’ and ‘free-markets’ is not without its own share of faults, and they have also done enough. As the Bible says “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”. No economic classification is completely sinless, and won’t be. We are all ‘animals’ basically, the war like instinct is there. I went to New Orleans right after ‘the hurricane’, (yep, down here we now call Katrina ‘the hurricane’) it was a completely war-like zone, why? It was down to food, water, and air. Nothing else. The veneer of civilization is very thin upon all of us.

I hope you remember that men have been killing each other for a million years before some distant ancestor of ours even spoke the first word in the first language wherever it was. There is no need to classify somebody as ‘communists’ just because right now you are impatient with the Communists in India or China or wherever, because they are not doing what you all want. Please don’t call somebody as communist as meaning something derogatory. Most everything in the world starts off with good intent, it is the people who misuse it.

Given access to heady power there are very few people who would use it wisely. In the last 100 years, Kemal Ataturk, Lee Kuan Yew are some of the few.

Aaahh, why don’t we move onto realistic issues and real scenarios. When Ravikiran/Ramnath posted their observation about why the reforms have stalled. That is wonderful. Realpolitik. Do some more really incisive analysis like this guys.

Kya yaar tu bhi,

Seriously, you can walk into any store, be instantly familiar, grab anything you want, and be out quickly in most major department chains here.

To substitute the familiarity of the local mom n pop store i.e kirana, they are tracking each and every transaction. I follow Jim Zellmer’s site and got the original tip on his site.

I will quote from the NYTimes article
The experts mined the data and found that the stores would indeed need certain products – and not just the usual flashlights. “We didn’t know in the past that strawberry Pop-Tarts increase in sales, like seven times their normal sales rate, ahead of a hurricane,” Ms. Dillman said in a recent interview. “And the pre-hurricane top-selling item was beer.”

Plenty of retailers collect data about their stores and their shoppers, and many use the information to try to improve sales. Target Stores, for example, introduced a branded Visa card in 2001 and has used it, along with an arsenal of gadgetry, to gather data ever since. But Wal-Mart amasses more data about the products it sells and its shoppers’ buying habits than anyone else, so much so that some privacy advocates worry about potential for abuse.

They are sitting on a potential public relations disaster time bomb (Grade A++).

Kya yaar tu bhi:

If I start blogging, it will be like Kiruba’s blog sans children, as I don’t have any. Atleast he can proudly say, look at my daughter holding the Brinjal or Drumstick or LadysFinger as the case may be. If I start blogging, I will have to hold that Brinjal myself…

You cracked me up laughing. Such sense of timing! I really wished you blogged! I am looking forward to your email.

Kyar Yaar Tu Bhi,
Insightful comments whether they are take on Kiruba or Indian Economy. After living for a decade in the US, I can totally understand and completely agree with your observation about the irony of someone in India worshipping it as a gospel truth in free markets. As with most history in past half a century, the US has somehow also managed to perpetuate this myth about itself. If it wasn’t so ironic it would be bloody amusing. Maybe on second thought – it is.

Anyways, like you said to Chetan – I am glad that you take the time off to write the comments that you do. Gives me the luxury of having a voice without actually making an effort to pen something down!!

M.

Kya Yaar Tu Bhi,

You are a giant. If Chetan’s comment is comment of the year, those 2 comments of yours would easily take positions 2 and 3.

Your fan base is growing at an exponential rate with every passing minute.

Wow. This thread has some great comments!

Unfortunately, I have even less time than Amit, so I’ll focus only on Shivam’s comment (#39)

Shivam, self regulation is not regulation by consumers, but regulation by manufacturers (or groups of manufacturers). It’s quite important and provides an alternative to the conventional wisdom about regulation. I’ll leave a few links for you to surf.

Self-Regulation: Regulatory Fad or Market Forces?

Trust for Hire: Voluntary Remedies for Quality and Safety

Ashok Desai’s introduction to Self-Regulation has excellent Indian examples. The book, published by Delhi’s Centre for Civil Society is out of print, but will be available in their library. The intro was online as a pdf file, but the link is broken.

Private Regulation: A Real Alternative for Regulatory Reform

And Cato Institute has a fine magazine on the issue, called, quite simply, Regulation.

It’s US centric, but worth a read anyway.

Hey Yajad,

Thanks for the links man. That CATO article on bank regulation was really good. You are a great man. The least celebrated cartelian and yet the most knowledgable one…. Less noise but more substance.

This is a thought that has been recurring consistently throughout these debates, but I have not articulated.

Arguing for or against regulation of free markets, on the terms that is being done here is utterly redundant. Should monopolies be regulated or not, I think not, because the definition of monopolies is suspect and loose. Is that relevant to most Indians? No!!

Most regulation in India takes the form of restrictions against competition, and the creation of barriers to entry. It relates to average citizens with incomes approaching the per capita from both sides, not to large corporates. The government that the regulators in this debate believe will be able to instigate competition is in fact standing on the chattis and trampling the aspiration of poor citizens.

When I talk about deregulation I think of this form of regulation. I think the Left intellectuals for all their hipocrisy are right on atleast this one count. We the Urban educated elite just don’t care about our poor compatriots. We are not in the least bit concerned that they are being regulated out of their livelihoods. We are bothered about how M$ is vacously cheating us of some notions of choice, which we through our uncritical support for regulation destroy for the poor.

When you think regulation think about the rickshaw driver, the redi/thela wala, the vegetable vendor or the workshopsmen, not of Bill Gates and of coloured water companies.

Marijuana, he is the LEADER of the Cartel goddammit! How can he be the least celebrated one? He seems silent because he works through us! It seems like we all have our own minds, but that is not true. We mostly do his bidding. Sometimes he asks us to argue among ourselves and disagree with him just to keep it all authentic.

haha, check out Kya Yaar Tu Bhi. I mean, you’d think you just have the typical backdoor statist/leftist with the traditional tikka of uber ethical conceit. But no; this one has the additional conceit of clarity of thought. Which is a contradiction in terms because with any modicum of clarity of thought, he wouldn’t be a backdoor statist in the first place.

Anyway, I’ll just make a comment abt his arithmetic vs math thing of Indians. Sorry to break his bubble, but when ppl talk abt somebody being good in math, EVEN in India, they do not mean arithmetic. They do not mean arithmetic because you do not do arithmetic after middle school. So just cause he received a tad bit of praise for doing a mean 2 + 2 in kindergarten and being appalled that he couldn’t quite translate it to multivariate calculus doesn’t mean that he could transfer that inadequacy to the many Indians who ARE quite good at math; and not as alleged in mere arithmetic.

… because with any modicum of clarity of thought, he wouldn’t be a backdoor statist in the first place.

Few things are funnier than a man who congenitally underestimates. But if he both underestimates and also thinks labels like “backdoor statist” amount to argument? Hilarious.

@seven times sex

Multivariate calculus is different in india and states. And multivariate calculus is well…basic math. Trust me it is….the level of math in US is different. Only ISI or IIT guys have that kind of funda. Believe me …what kytb said is verrrry true.
Indians being good in math is in general a myth. Yes, there are people like CR Rao, but im talking about general public, say like me.:) Most guys said that CAT 2005 math was tough. So in India its like do vedic, learn tricks, buy books by indian authors with lotsa solved examples etc etc….here those tricky stuff in CAT 2005 math which my bro said threw him off would be taught in a coherent way via a sub like ‘Theory of Numbers’…there is a difference….multivariate calc is best understood if u have a strong background in analysis…how many engineering grads in india know real or complex analysis?…and what about linear algebra. most MIT undergrad guys do Rudin. Check the faculty list of most colleges…engineering …lotsa people…math….not many.